• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

Absolutely the should. Why should the government not spend money to help people that catch a disease? It only seems like common sense to me.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
When I was single I always did and that was before AIDS.
Click to expand...

Well, congratulations. You put yourself at risk for a number of diseases yourself. How many people do you think were infected with HIV before we really knew what it was and knew it could kill? That could have been you. You also could have acquired syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, hepatitis or other diseases that we can treat and cure now because of research that you now want to deny AIDS victims. You are no better than the "sexually promiscuous" people who you say gave themselves AIDS. This whole thread is one gigantic failure on your part.
 
kerussll said:
Well, congratulations. You put yourself at risk for a number of diseases yourself. How many people do you think were infected with HIV before we really knew what it was and knew it could kill? That could have been you. You also could have acquired syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, hepatitis or other diseases that we can treat and cure now because of research that you now want to deny AIDS victims. You are no better than the "sexually promiscuous" people who you say gave themselves AIDS. This whole thread is one gigantic failure on your part.
Click to expand...

Somehow you misread my post, I clearly stated I always used rubbers when I was single, I thought I was clear anyway.
 
kerussll said:
Well, congratulations. You put yourself at risk for a number of diseases yourself. How many people do you think were infected with HIV before we really knew what it was and knew it could kill? That could have been you. You also could have acquired syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, hepatitis or other diseases that we can treat and cure now because of research that you now want to deny AIDS victims. You are no better than the "sexually promiscuous" people who you say gave themselves AIDS. This whole thread is one gigantic failure on your part.
Click to expand...

Oh crap, LOL. Sorry kerussll, I misread YOUR post. I thought you asked if I ever had sex WITH a rubber.:doh
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Somehow you misread my post, I clearly stated I always used rubbers when I was single, I thought I was clear anyway.
Click to expand...

Ok, no that was not clear. I asked if you ever had sex without a condom, and you replied "I always did" Way to read, dude.

Anyway, now that you're not single you don't use condoms? Then there is a chance you could contract HIV. That is what the "unprotected sex" means that you keep blaming people for. Or are you just not having sex at all?
 
kerussll said:
Ok, no that was not clear. I asked if you ever had sex without a condom, and you replied "I always did" Way to read, dude.

Anyway, now that you're not single you don't use condoms? There is a chance you could contract HIV. That is what the "unprotected sex" piece of the pie chart that you posted means. Or are you just not having sex at all?
Click to expand...

You shouldn't make fun of a semi old guy that doesn't always wear his readers, you will get there someday too little girl, LOL. I am married and we are monogamous so no I don't use rubbers now, "dudette".
 
sawyerloggingon said:
AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money from things like childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc and giving it to a group of people who pretty much deserve what they got is a huge waste of resources. The only reason we spend so much money on it is that so many people that have it or fear they may contract it are so vocal and being gay is
so trendy as a current human right. So heres the question, should we be funding research to cure these people or worse yet find a vaccine to let them engage in their risky lifestyle with no consequences?

EDIT: sorry I blew the poll part but I would be interested in your opinions.
Click to expand...


Would I use tax money? No. That position would be mine for all dieseases. That my phisophical position. That said curing or controlling HIV/AIDS is a good thing because of the knowledge you gain from though understanding of its mechanisms can be applied elsewhere, anothers word a cure for HIV isnt just a cure for HIV but other dieseases as well. I hope that makes sence.
 
Last edited:
kerussll said:
Ok, no that was not clear. I asked if you ever had sex without a condom, and you replied "I always did" Way to read, dude.

Anyway, now that you're not single you don't use condoms? Then there is a chance you could contract HIV. That is what the "unprotected sex" means that you keep blaming people for. Or are you just not having sex at all?
Click to expand...

My guess is 99% of the unprotected sex in the womans pie chart is representative of prostitutes. With men it's 99% gay sex.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Would I use tax money? No. That position would be mine for all dieseases. That my phisophical position. That said curing or controlling HIV/AIDS is a good thing because of the knowledge you gain from though understanding of its mechanisms can be applied elsewhere, anothers word a cure for HIV isnt just a cure for HIV but other dieseases as well. I hope that makes sence.
Click to expand...

More sense than anyone else for whatever that is worth.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You shouldn't make fun of a semi old guy that doesn't always wear his readers, you will get there someday too little girl, LOL. I am married and we are monogamous so no I don't use rubbers now, "dudette".
Click to expand...

Sorry Mr. :) So you are having unprotected sex. (As is expected in a marriage, so I'm not blaming you) But there is a risk of you contracting HIV, even if it's small. That all kind of depends on what your partner is doing, and the rate of infidelity in marriages is very very high. Plenty of people trust their partners who cheat on them and put them at risk. Sleeping around in your youth, and having unprotected sex now, engaging in totally normal human behaviors that the rest of the world does also... I fail to see how you are better than the people you speak with contempt about. :shrug:
 
Viruses mutate all the time will it still be a waste of tax dollars to research AIDS when it goes airborne?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
My guess is 99% of the unprotected sex in the womans pie chart is representative of prostitutes. With men it's 99% gay sex.
Click to expand...


Your own pie chart disputes that. Maybe try reading it?
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money from things like childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc and giving it to a group of people who pretty much deserve what they got is a huge waste of resources. The only reason we spend so much money on it is that so many people that have it or fear they may contract it are so vocal and being gay is
so trendy as a current human right. So heres the question, should we be funding research to cure these people or worse yet find a vaccine to let them engage in their risky lifestyle with no consequences?

EDIT: sorry I blew the poll part but I would be interested in your opinions.
Click to expand...

I think that developing a cure for AIDS would be a benefit for everyone. I have a serious issue with what you said about them deserving it. IMO, having unprotected sex isn't a serious enough mistake to warrant a death sentence. Yes, for most people it is their own fault if they get AIDS, but the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
 
Not everyone who has AIDs has it due to personal failings. I heard from 2 HIV patients today, one of them was a female that had sex with her boyfriend and only with her boyfriend. He was not sleeping around either, he was using dirty needles to inject steroids and contracted HIV and did not know about it. Likewise, she contracted HIV from him and didn't know he was positive (neither did he until she got tested due to her physician suspecting she may have HIV due to a medical complication).

People may make very stupid choices like having promiscuous sex, sharing needles or other high risk behaviors for contracting HIV. However, if you are going to make the argument that moral failings invalidate funding for a disease should we also not fund cancer research since many people with cancer were also smokers or had other risk factors by choice? Should we not spend taxpayer dollars on hypertension, diabetes and heart disease since many of these diseases are caused/aggravated by obesity and poor diet?

I think the government should absolutely fund AIDs medication and research. Sure, some people with the virus contracted it due to moral failings but they still need help nor should they be denied it. AIDs medication is extremely expensive, I'm also glad that there are government programs out there to help cover these medications.
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money from things like childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc and giving it to a group of people who pretty much deserve what they got is a huge waste of resources. The only reason we spend so much money on it is that so many people that have it or fear they may contract it are so vocal and being gay is
so trendy as a current human right. So heres the question, should we be funding research to cure these people or worse yet find a vaccine to let them engage in their risky lifestyle with no consequences?

EDIT: sorry I blew the poll part but I would be interested in your opinions.
Click to expand...

Using your logic, why spend money on the research and prevention of any STD? After all, they are preventable.

P.S. No one "deserves" AIDS.
 
Last edited:
Yes, we should spend taxpayer dollars to research a cure for AIDS.

Since every reason I do support it has been expressed already, I won't repeat them except to these two. No one deserves AIDS and just because it is primarily transmitted through unprotected sex and illicit drug use doesn't change that. It is a scourge and if there is one thing you might consider, by the very fact the government has spent money on research to this point, the world is less dangerous place because of what has been discovered about it so far. Imagine if AIDS was running rampant as in the early 80's and we were all still in the dark and there was no way at all to treat it. The toll in human suffering would be incredible. Even you sawyer, as remote as you keep yourself, might encounter, know, or love someone who was infected.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money ... and giving it to a group of people who pretty much deserve what they got is a huge waste of resources. The only reason we spend so much money on it is that so many people that have it or fear they may contract it are so vocal and being gay is so trendy as a current human right. So heres the question, should we be funding research to cure these people or worse yet find a vaccine to let them engage in their risky lifestyle with no consequences?
Click to expand...

The month ends with the most dispicable OP of the month award going to this thread.
 
I'm going to ignore your opinion that non-married, only sex with one person in his/her life deserve to die claim. Since it is 100% about you, then in the context only of you.

One reason could be if one of THOSE PEOPLE with AIDS rapes you, spouse or child. Or passed blood in an accident or sporting event. Or uses your toothbrush without you knowing.

Eh, let your child, wife or you die - because they/you then deserve it according to your message.

STDs are one TRUE terror of rape victims. I guess you claim they also deserve to die.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money from things like childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc and giving it to a group of people who pretty much deserve what they got is a huge waste of resources. The only reason we spend so much money on it is that so many people that have it or fear they may contract it are so vocal and being gay is
so trendy as a current human right. So heres the question, should we be funding research to cure these people or worse yet find a vaccine to let them engage in their risky lifestyle with no consequences?

EDIT: sorry I blew the poll part but I would be interested in your opinions.
Click to expand...

My opinion is that the statement in bold is thoroughly disgusting, and that you should be ashamed of yourself. I'm sure you won't be, but you should be.
 
No, the government should not be concerned with it.

Btw, where is the poll?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I know there are some innocent victims of AID's but they are very small percentage. Why not concentrate on diseases like childhood Leukemia, Parkinson's MS etc. There are only so many research dollars and minds to go around so why not get the most bang for your buck. AID's should be at the bottom of the list not the top.
Click to expand...

Leukemia is not a communicable disease.

And people can cause their own leukemia. Therefore they deserve what they got.

What causes leukemia?

Experts don't know what causes leukemia. But some things are known to increase the risk of some kinds of leukemia. These things are called risk factors.

You are more likely to get leukemia if you:
Were exposed to large amounts of radiation.
Were exposed to certain chemicals at work, such as benzene.
Had some types of chemotherapy to treat another cancer.
Have Down syndrome or some other genetic problems.
Smoke.
 
Here's another reason. People with defective immune systems bodies have the ability to allow other diseases to mutate into more virulent forms, including air transmittable diseases and viruses.

And the government should POUR $$ into research cures for all communicable diseases as population continues to grow and be more mobile.

300,000 Americans now infected by a mosquito borne. And numbers are growing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/s...called-the-new-aids-of-the-americas.html?_r=0

But this mostly only happens to people going outside, so those people deserve it because it mostly is preventable.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money from things like childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc and giving it to a group of people who pretty much deserve what they got is a huge waste of resources. The only reason we spend so much money on it is that so many people that have it or fear they may contract it are so vocal and being gay is
so trendy as a current human right. So heres the question, should we be funding research to cure these people or worse yet find a vaccine to let them engage in their risky lifestyle with no consequences?

EDIT: sorry I blew the poll part but I would be interested in your opinions.
Click to expand...

If there are no consequences the behavior won't be risky anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom